Brian Fallon, spokesman for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, dismissed the New York Times story about Russia gaining control of a significant portion of U.S. uranium saying that there is not a “shred of evidence” that Hillary Clinton approved the deal to reward donors of the Clinton Foundation.
ABC News’ Clinton apologist, George Stephanopoulos, also dismissed the notion that contributions influenced Mrs. Clinton’s decisions.
“We’ve done investigative work here at ABC News,” Stephanopoulos said, “and found no proof of any kind of direct action.”
President Bill Clinton finally closed the door on this issue. Asked by CNN’s Jake Tapper whether contributions influenced his wife’s decisions, he said: “She was pretty busy those years. I never saw her study a list of my contributors.”
There! That should settle it.
Former U.S. President Bill Clinton (R) and Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)
The questions, however, won’t go away. There is too much coincidence to ignore.
Campaigning for president in 1992, Bill Clinton said, “I do not believe we should extend ‘Most Favored Nation’ status to China unless they make significant progress in human rights, arms proliferation and fair trade.”
In August 1993, in response to China’s transferring missile technology to Pakistan, the United States banned the export of American-made technology and computer systems that would aid in the launching of a rocket or missile.
One month later, Michael Armstrong, CEO of Hughes Electronics wrote to President Clinton reminding him of Hughes’ financial support to Democrats in the previous two years. He argued that the sanctions were damaging his company.
In November, President Clinton approved the sale of an $8 million supercomputer to China and in March 1994 further sanctions on the sale of technology for rocket launches were removed.
There was not a “shred of evidence” that the political contributions had any influence on the president’s decisions.
During the 1990’s the Lippo Group, a $5 billion Indonesia conglomerate founded by the father of Clinton pal James Riady, came under investigation for funneling millions of dollars into Democrat campaigns.
Ten days before Bill Clinton left the presidency a plea agreement was reached in which the Lippo Group paid an $8.6 million fine and James Riady’s visa to travel to the United States was revoked.
In 1996 President Clinton used the Antiquities Act to establish the 1.7 million acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah.
According to the New York Times the monument removed a trillion dollar low-sulfur, low ash-hence low polluting coal field from the energy markets. The next largest similar coal deposit is, coincidentally, in Indonesia.
After being kept out of the United States for eight years, James Riady was granted a visa to visit in early 2009. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had no knowledge of his getting the visa.
There is not a “shred of evidence” that the campaign contributions influenced any Clinton decisions.
In his last days in office in January of 2009, President Clinton approved 450 pardons. Marc Rich, who had been indicted in 1983 on 65 criminal counts, including tax evasion, wire fraud, racketeering and trading with Iran during the oil embargo, was one of them.
Rich was living in Switzerland and did not return to the United States to face charges, but his companies paid $90 million in fines. He was on the FBI’s 10 Most-Wanted Fugitives list.
During Bill Clinton’s time in office Denise Rich, the former wife of the fugitive, gave more than a million dollars to Democrat Party coffers, including $100,000 to Mrs. Clinton’s Senate campaign. She also gave $450,000 to the Clinton Library.
There is not a “shred of evidence” that the president’s decision to pardon Marc Rich was driven by anything other than compassion for a man who had been away from home for far too long.
It is unfortunate that Mrs. Clinton’s emails have all been lost. Were they available all of these coincidences might be shown to be just that- coincidences.
Or perhaps Charles Krauthammer assessed this situation correctly. He said, “There is no shred of evidence because the evidence was all shredded.”
TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.